Effectiveness of visual inspection compared with non-microbiologic methods to determine the thoroughness of post-discharge cleaning

Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control

Graham M Snyder¹  Aleah D Holyoak¹  Katharine E Leary¹  Bernadette F Sullivan¹  Roger B Davis²  Sharon B Wright¹ 

[1] Division of Infection Control/Hospital Epidemiology, Silverman Institute of Health Care Quality & Safety, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, Mailstop SL-435, Boston, MA 02215, USA

[2] Department of Medicine, Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02115, USA

关键词: Nosocomial transmission;    Surface contamination;    Environmental cleaning;   

Others  :  790751
DOI  :  10.1186/2047-2994-2-26

 received in 2013-03-01, accepted in 2013-09-08,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Published data to date have provided a limited comparison between non-microbiologic methods—particularly visual inspection—and a microbiologic comparator to evaluate the effectiveness of environmental cleaning of patient rooms. We sought to compare the accuracy of visual inspection with other non-microbiologic methods of assessing the effectiveness of post-discharge cleaning (PDC).

Methods

Prospective evaluation to determine the effectiveness of PDC in comparison to a microbiologic comparator. Using a highly standardized methodology examining 15 high-touch surfaces, the effectiveness of PDC was evaluated by visual inspection, the removal of fluorescent marker (FM) placed prior to room occupancy, quantification of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels, and culture for aerobic colony counts (ACC).

Results

Twenty rooms including 293 surfaces were sampled in the study, including 290 surfaces sampled by all four methods. ACC demonstrated 72% of surfaces to be microbiologically clean. Visual inspection, FM, ATP demonstrated 57%, 49%, and 66% of surfaces to be clean. Using ACC as a microbiologic comparator, the sensitivity of visual inspection, FM, and ATP to detect a clean surface were 60%, 51%, and 70%, respectively; the specificity of visual inspection, FM, and ATP were 52%, 56%, and 44%.

Conclusions

In assessing the effectiveness of PDC, there was poor correlation between the two most frequently studied commercial methods and a microbiologic comparator. Visual inspection performed at least as well as commercial methods, directly addresses patient perception of cleanliness, and is economical to implement.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Snyder et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sehulster L, Chinn RY: Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR Recomm Rep 2003, 52:1-42.
• [2]Guh A, Carling P, the Environmental Evaluation Workgroup: CDC Environmental Checklist for Monitoring Terminal Cleaning. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/toolkits/Environmental-Cleaning-Checklist-10-6-2010.pdf webcite
• [3]Guh A, Carling P, the Environmental Evaluation Workgroup: Options for Evaluating Environmental Cleaning. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/HAI/pdfs/toolkits/Environ-Cleaning-Eval-Toolkit12-2-2010.pdf webcite
• [4]Eckstein BC, Adams DA, Eckstein EC, Rao A, Sethi AK, Yadavalli GK, Donskey CJ: Reduction of Clostridium Difficile and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus contamination of environmental surfaces after an intervention to improve cleaning methods. BMC Infect Dis 2007, 7:61. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Cooper RA, Griffith CJ, Malik RE, Obee P, Looker N: Monitoring the effectiveness of cleaning in four British hospitals. Am J Infect Control 2007, 35:338-341.
• [6]Griffith CJ, Cooper RA, Gilmore J, Davies C, Lewis M: An evaluation of hospital cleaning regimes and standards. J Hosp Infect 2000, 45:19-28.
• [7]Griffith CJ, Obee P, Cooper RA, Burton NF, Lewis M: The effectiveness of existing and modified cleaning regimens in a Welsh hospital. J Hosp Infect 2007, 66:352-359.
• [8]Lewis T, Griffith C, Gallo M, Weinbren M: A modified ATP benchmark for evaluating the cleaning of some hospital environmental surfaces. J Hosp Infect 2008, 69:156-163.
• [9]Malik RE, Cooper RA, Griffith CJ: Use of audit tools to evaluate the efficacy of cleaning systems in hospitals. Am J Infect Control 2003, 31:181-187.
• [10]Mulvey D, Redding P, Robertson C, Woodall C, Kingsmore P, Bedwell D, Dancer SJ: Finding a benchmark for monitoring hospital cleanliness. J Hosp Infect 2011, 77:25-30.
• [11]Sherlock O, O’Connell N, Creamer E, Humphreys H: Is it really clean? An evaluation of the efficacy of four methods for determining hospital cleanliness. J Hosp Infect 2009, 72:140-146.
• [12]Boyce JM, Havill NL, Dumigan DG, Golebiewski M, Balogun O, Rizvani R: Monitoring the effectiveness of hospital cleaning practices by use of an adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009, 30:678-684.
• [13]Goodman ER, Platt R, Bass R, Onderdonk AB, Yokoe DS, Huang SS: Impact of an environmental cleaning intervention on the presence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci on surfaces in intensive care unit rooms. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008, 29:593-599.
• [14]Carling PC: Evaluating the thoroughness of environmental cleaning in hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2008, 68:273-274.
• [15]Carling PC, Briggs J, Hylander D, Perkins J: An evaluation of patient area cleaning in 3 hospitals using a novel targeting methodology. Am J Infect Control 2006, 34:513-519.
• [16]Carling PC, Briggs JL, Perkins J, Highlander D: Improved cleaning of patient rooms using a new targeting method. Clin Infect Dis 2006, 42:385-388.
• [17]Carling PC, Parry MF, Bruno-Murtha LA, Dick B: Improving environmental hygiene in 27 intensive care units to decrease multidrug-resistant bacterial transmission. Crit Care Med 2010, 38:1054-1059.
• [18]Carling PC, Parry MF, Von Beheren SM: Identifying opportunities to enhance environmental cleaning in 23 acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008, 29:1-7.
• [19]Carling PC, Parry MM, Rupp ME, Po JL, Dick B, Von Beheren S: Improving cleaning of the environment surrounding patients in 36 acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008, 29:1035-1041.
• [20]Po JL, Burke R, Sulis C, Carling PC: Dangerous cows: an analysis of disinfection cleaning of computer keyboards on wheels. Am J Infect Control 2009, 37:778-780.
• [21]Boyce JM, Havill NL, Havill HL, Mangione E, Dumigan DG, Moore BA: Comparison of fluorescent marker systems with 2 quantitative methods of assessing terminal cleaning practices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011, 32:1187-1193.
• [22]Carling PC, Von Beheren S, Kim P, Woods C: Intensive care unit environmental cleaning: an evaluation in sixteen hospitals using a novel assessment tool. J Hosp Infect 2008, 68:39-44.
• [23]Carling PC: Monitoring cleaning of surfaces. Hingham, MA: Kleancheck Systems, LLC; 2010.
• [24]Moore G, Smyth D, Singleton J, Wilson P: The use of adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence to assess the efficacy of a modified cleaning program implemented within an intensive care setting. Am J Infect Control 2010, 38:617-622.
• [25]Mayhall CG: Hospital epidemiology and infection control. 4th edition. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
• [26]Carling PC, Bartley JM: Evaluating hygienic cleaning in health care settings: what you do not know can harm your patients. Am J Infect Control 2010, 38:S41-50.
• [27]Dancer SJ, White L, Robertson C: Monitoring environmental cleanliness on two surgical wards. Int J Environ Health Res 2008, 18:357-364.
• [28]Dancer SJ: How do we assess hospital cleaning? A proposal for microbiological standards for surface hygiene in hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2004, 56:10-15.
• [29]Al-Hamad A, Maxwell S: How clean is clean? Proposed methods for hospital cleaning assessment. J Hosp Infect 2008, 70:328-334.
• [30]Kohli E, Ptak J, Smith R, Taylor E, Talbot EA, Kirkland KB: Variability in the Hawthorne effect with regard to hand hygiene performance in high- and low-performing inpatient care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009, 30:222-225.
• [31]Eckmanns T, Bessert J, Behnke M, Gastmeier P, Ruden H: Compliance with antiseptic hand rub use in intensive care units: the Hawthorne effect. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006, 27:931-934.
• [32]Goldstein E, Farquhar M, Crofton C, Darby C, Garfinkel S: Measuring hospital care from the patients’ perspective: an overview of the CAHPS Hospital Survey development process. Health Serv Res 2005, 40:1977-1995.
• [33]Wright MO, Hebden JN, Harris AD, Shanholtz CB, Standiford HC, Furuno JP, Perencevich EN: Aggressive control measures for resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and the impact on acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus in a medical intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004, 25:167-168.
• [34]Dancer SJ: The role of environmental cleaning in the control of hospital-acquired infection. J Hosp Infect 2009, 73:378-385.